Subscribe to ZiefBrief

Has ZiefBrief gone off the rails? Are we entering the realm of contentious ideological debate? Well… no. But we do have a point about legal research.

The other day we were preparing a simple exercise in finding cases by citation, using Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), as an example. We noticed that Shepard's gave Roe a red stop-sign (indicating the most highly negative treatment), and we explored further. It turned out that, as the Shepard's editors see it, Roe was "Overruled as stated in" Gonzales v. Carhart, 127 S. Ct. 1610 (2007) [PDF; 73 pages].

Curious to see what the competition said, we ran Roe through KeyCite on Westlaw. KeyCite gave Roe a yellow flag. A step down from the red flag, the yellow signals, in the views of the KeyCite editors: "Some negative history but not overruled". When it came to the effect of Carhart on Roe, KeyCite said: "Modification Recognized by Gonzales v. Carhart."

The lesson is that researchers ultimately need to read the citing cases (here, Carhart) and decide for themselves what effect they have on the case they are researching (here, Roe). Cite-checking tools at best give attorneys signals as to potential problems. It is the attorney's responsibility to follow up.

So has Roe been overruled? That's not for Shepard's or KeyCite to say. Their core purpose is to alert researchers to a possible change in status and point to the citing cases (such as Carhart). The legal community as a whole needs to read those cases and debate their meaning before we can begin to work out where Roe stands today.

The newest edition of the Z-Flyer, the newsletter of the Dorraine Zief Law Library is available now. Featured articles include reports from librarians Lee Ryan and Shannon Burchard on their activities at the American Association of Law Libraries summer conference in New Orleans as well as a autobiographical essay from Jill Fukunaga, the newest member of the law library staff.

One of our colleagues at USC's law library has posted information about this interesting new resource, ACS Research Link. We're busy this week, so we're just going to cut and paste the information about the new service below:

ACS is pleased to
announce the launch of ACS ResearchLink: Connecting Law Students and Lawyers Committed to
Justice.

By connecting law students and faculty
with the research needs of public interest organizations and advocates, ACS
ResearchLink supports the public interest by enhancing the relevance and
influence of student scholarship.

ACS ResearchLink is an excellent source of
real-world legal questions through which to increase the relevance of your
academic work -- whether you are writing for a law review or journal, seminar,
dissertation or independent study. In addition to identifying potential
research topics, participation may also offer an opportunity to build important
relationships with practitioners.

Follow this link to the student home page. Research topics are
currently available, with more to be added throughout the academic year: follow
these links to search or browse available topics.

We all knew that this day was approaching -- the day when American Law Reports content would be available exclusively on Westlaw. (What is ALR, you ask? Check out this handy Harvard Law Library research guide to learn all about ALR.)

I learned last fall that ALR's days on Lexis were numbered, but hadn't yet heard of an actual date when ALR would be yanked from Lexis. My esteemed colleague, Bonnie Shucha at WisBlawg, has posted an article from Information Today, informing legal researchers that ALR content will only be available on Westlaw as of January 2008.

Our colleagues at the Boley Law Library at Lewis and Clark Law School have posted their annual Tips for 1Ls From Around the Blogosphere. This year's collection ranges from general survival advice to tips on understanding legal terminology to the ever-popular advice from Professor Orin Kerr on how to read a case.

And here's a bonus tip from ZiefBrief: for a fund of great advice on how to study and learn, visit Lawsagna, where Anastasia give you "alternating layers of thoughts, tools, tricks, tips and other ingredients for a successful learning experience in law school and beyond."

Are you Jennifer Lopez with tenure and elbow patches? That is, will
you constantly pester us with capricious requests? Will you ask us to
speak to your research assistants, will you drop by the office, will
you--instead of accepting or rejecting our proposed changes--want to
discuss them all in excruciating detail? If so, and if we can detect it
in time, subtract 15. Subtract only 5 if your article has any redeeming
qualities.

Most entertaining! And thank you, former editor, for also drawing attention to the overuse of the Humpty-Dumpty quote from Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass. A quick Westlaw search reveals 219 uses of this quotation in United States law review and journal articles, and that is just too many!

If you're a member of the legal community, it's hard to miss the ongoing debate and teeth-gnashing over the billable hour. Although everyone seems to agree that it is one of the reasons that so many law firm associates end up leaving firms after just a few years of practice, most law firms have been reluctant to give up billing in six-minute increments.

Until now! The National Law Journal is reporting that the brave partners at Atlanta labor and employment law firm Ford & Harrison have decided to eliminate billable hours requirements for their first-year associates. The firm is also making a concerted effort to make associates' first year at the firm more like an apprenticeship -- according to the NLJ article, first-years will be "observing depositions and witness interviews and attending
hearings and litigation strategy meetings." However, as a mid-sized firm, Ford & Harrison isn't paying its new associates as much as some of the bigger firms. First-years receive a salary of $125,000, which is well below the starting salary of $160,000 at most large, multi-state firms. We'll be following this story to see if Ford & Harrison's popularity soars among job-seekers or if the lure of a bigger salary defeats the appeal of a billables-free life.

For a taste of the billable hours debate, be sure to read Scott Turow's take on the billable hour in the latest issue of the ABA Journal, "The Billable Hour Must Die." Gee, tell us how you really feel, Scott!

The litigation surrounding BAR/BRI is threatening to achieve Jarndyce and Jarndyce-like proportions. Eliot Disner, the attorney who filed the original class action suit against BAR/BRI that just settled, has regrouped following his dismissal from McGuireWoods and he's back again with a new lawsuit against BAR/BRI (more on Mr. Disner in this previous ZiefBrief post). According to an article on Law.com, Disner is seeking an injunction that would "open the market to competitors." The suit alleges that West Publishing's BAR/BRI has maintained its monopoly on bar review preparation by negotiating deals with or intimidating other bar review courses who attempt to compete with it. Mr. Disner's suit is not to be confused with the complaint just filed in New York. Will BAR/BRI litigation ever end? Or, to roughly paraphrase Dickens, will the litigation drone on for decades, "perenially hopeless"? Stay tuned.